Monday, August 31, 2015

In the latest fit of Left-wing Fear and Trembling, MoveOn.org released the latest eblast, begging liberal progressive activists to chip and save Planned Murderhood.

Er. . .Planned Parricide. . .er Planned Parenthood.

The latest desperate plea of the secular, Big Goverment Left-Wing grassroots organization should the boost the spirits of pro-life forces across the country and the world.

When liberal, anti-social activists realize that liberty activists can use their tactics, and use them toward greater ends with stronger finesse, everyone on the outside looking in can feel their panic on the airwaves, the Twitterverse, and all over the Internet.

From Victoria Kaplan:

Dear MoveOn member,

In just two weeks, five states—Utah, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Alabama—defunded Planned Parenthood.1

Throw up your hands and shout Hallelujah! Even the most pro-choice of Republicans have declared their full intent to defund the felony murder and sale of human fetuses and their body parts. The country is growing more towards pro-life, because technology has made it crystal clear that life begins at conception, and that every life matters.

At least eleven states are considering similar cuts or have launched investigations to attack Planned Parenthood.2

There are only three states in which Planned Parenthood affiliate clinics participate in fetal tissue donation programs: California, Colorado, and Texas.

And yet, to date, there have been 11 state-led investigations into Planned Parenthood following the release of the "sting" videos by the Center for Medical Progress: Texas, Ohio, Missouri (where there are hearings in the legislature only), Louisiana, Kansas, Georgia, Florida, Arizona (where it is qualified as inspections of clinics only, in compliance with current state law and procedure), Indiana, and Massachusetts. [Yahoo News, 8/19/15]

Strangely enough, Kaplan focuses on attacking Republicans as the root malevolence against Planned Parenthood. Yet Democratic Governor Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire already cut the funding, and other blue states like Massachusetts are launching investigations.Of course, Kaplan resumes her fear-mongering tirade to protect an officious institution which should never had received federal funding in the firs place:

And as soon as Congress reconvenes, anti-choice Republicans will resume pushing legislation to cut off Planned Parenthood nationwide, perhaps even threatening a government shutdown.3

If anything is anti-choice, look no further than an institution which kills unborn children in the mother's womb, often lying to the mothers-to-be without informing them of the severe consequences, mental and physical, associated with the taking of a life.

This is an all-out assault on Planned Parenthood—so we've launched a major campaign to turn the tide before this vital women's health resource is completely decimated.

Kaplan has one thing right -- the grassroots fight against Planned Parenthood across the country is an all-out assault on Planned Murderhood, the death of young children and the harm done to women (and men) in the name of "choice.".

MoveOn is falling behind

But since no one knew these sneak attacks were coming, we didn't budget for this fight. Will you chip in $3 to help MoveOn stand with Planned Parenthood?

Well. Well. Well. The Left is left without resources to push their leftist, statist, anti-life, anti-liberty agenda. When power has no moral compass or truth behind it, then there is no real power there to begin with.

Anti-choice activists have been campaigning to defund Planned Parenthood for years.

Once again, this "anti-choice" rhetoric is repetitive as well as false. Many women who chose to undergo an abortion often regret it, and wish that they could rethink "the choice". Other women were pressured into the abortion because of peers or otherwise unfaithful lovers.

In 2011 alone, the anti-choice group Susan B. Anthony List bragged that they'd cut over $61 million in funding for Pap smears, cancer screenings, and other basic health services at Planned Parenthood.4

Susan B. Anthony was one of the first American feminists. She was a proud and principled patriot, and she despised abortion. Feminism has a pro-life core and history, despite the meandering distortions of the Left.

But since the release of those heavily edited videos recorded by anti-choice militants who are linked to clinic bombings and shootings, Planned Parenthood is under attack like never before.5

They were not heavily edited. There were eight videos, by the way.

Here's our plan to fight back:

We'll team up with Planned Parenthood for a nationwide "Pink Out" day of action in late September to get everyone wearing pink in support of Planned Parenthood.

We'll hold pro-choice lawmakers who flip their votes against Planned Parenthood accountable with hard-hitting ads, phone calls, and protests in front of their offices.

We'll focus attention on real Planned Parenthood patients by featuring them in Facebook ads and as petition leaders.

Here, the tactics of the subversive, illiberal progressive movement shows its colors, and they are not pink with courtesy, but red with the blood of innocent infants. This time, however, the pro-abortion crowd is on the defense playing catch-up, and they are not advancing.

But all this will cost money—so if you've ever visited a Planned Parenthood, know anyone who's ever visited a Planned Parenthood, or have a child or loved one who might ever need Planned Parenthood—now's the time to stand up and fight.

Will you chip in $3 to help MoveOn stand with Planned Parenthood?

What is it about the Left and liberal interest gourps that they are constantly holding their hands out demanding that their followers and fans pay for the demonstrations and protests? Pro-Life protests broke out all over the country on August 22nd, 2015, without costing those advocates a penny.Freedom of speech truly is free, for those with the wisdom and courage to use it. MoveOn.org sounds more and more like a corporate astro-turf front than anything nobly associated with grassroots activism. And there not even as good at it as conservatives, Republicans, freedom fighters, and pro-life advocates in general.

At what point, in this
great nation of immigrants, did calling someone an “immigrant” become such an
insult?

Better question – at what point did any
serious journalist or opinion writer decide that there as a latent or
widespread hatred of immigrants, and that the term has become an insult? The
true insult is using the term “immigrant” for those who brazenly break the law
to enter the country.

Recent
weeks — on the campaign trail and elsewhere — have been filled with ugly
rhetoric about immigration status or other ethnic impurities, even when the
target of such attacks has entered the country legally, is a naturalized
American or is even an American by birth but descended from the wrong kind of
parents. Witness Donald Trump’s proposal to deport first-generation Americans
whose citizenship is conferred upon them, constitutionally, by birth. Witness legions of white nationalistslining
up behind him, and the coded “dog-whistle politics” that other candidates are
invoking to attract their own anti-immigrant coalitions.

David Duke likes Donald Trump. That is a bad
sign. The notion that white people all over the country are sporting white
hoods, burning crosses, and attacking black folks is a reprehensible fraud.

Even
presidential contenders who are themselves the children of immigrants and lucky
legatees of the great American melting pot are denouncing the uncontrollable
invasion of foreigners.

And who would those individuals be? The
columnist provides nothing substantive. She might want to discuss how the
Republican Party Presidential candidates sport one of htemost diverse and
impressive benches in recent memory, compared to the Dead White European Male
(and one Female) bench which has become the Democratic Party. For a political
cause which had worked so hard to reach out and torture minority perceptions to
despite liberty and limited government, they have done little else to expand
the influence and respect of minority leaders.

It’s
tempting to blame Trump for igniting the fires of xenophobia, betraying the
great tradition of embracing immigrant strivers. But the embarrassing truth is
that the United States has always been hostile to immigrants. Or at least, a
strong and vocal faction has been. This nativist streak dates back even to the
earliest days of the republic.

This is the biggest lie I have read yet in any
major newspaper.

You
know Ellis Island, the place textbooks portray as the welcoming ward for
generations of dreamers?

“We
think of Ellis Island as this great monument to immigration. It’s really the
monument to border control,” says Morris Vogel, president of the Lower East Side
Tenement Museum, which painstakingly reconstructs the squalor and
ambition of 19th- and 20th-century immigrants. Ellis Island was, Vogel notes,
“the first wall,” often used to repel undesirables.

“Undesirables” include individuals with
severe, communicable disease, as well as domestic terrorists and anarchists.
The present age forgets that one President was assassinated by a deranged
immigrant anarchist (McKinley), and his successor was nearly killed in a
similar manner (Teddy Roosevelt). Every nation takes necessary and proper steps
to ensure secure borders and safe citizens. That is neither hateful nor
spiteful.

[In]1882,
Congress had passed the Chinese Exclusion Act,
the first major immigration law to restrict entry of a specific ethnic group,
after complaints that the Chinese were polluting American culture and
appropriating American jobs.

Congress implemented those laws. Not the
country.

What
about the European immigrants welcomed in decades prior, when they fled
poverty, persecution or potato famine?

Well,
in the mid-19th century, an entire national political party — the Know Nothings
— was predicated on fears that morally and racially inferior German and Irish
Catholic immigrants were threatening the livelihoods and liberties of
native-born Protestants.

The Know-Nothings had marginal influence, and
became a laughing stock which dissipated into nothing.

Even
earlier, some of our most venerated Founding Fathers — people who had abundant
evidence of the additive properties of ethnic diversity and benefits of
infusing the economy with fresh blood — exhibited frighteningly nativist
tendencies. Benjamin Franklin denounced the scourge of “swarthy” German
immigrants who refused to speak English, for example.

Ben Franklin. His actions speak for every
American? Really?!

Even
the West Indian-born Alexander Hamilton — arguably the immigrant who made the
biggest contribution to U.S. political history — later in his career denounced
lax immigration policies. In the terrific bio-musical
of his life now lighting up Broadway, the word “immigrant” is often
hurled at him as a winking epithet. But in real life, perhaps for reasons of
political expedience, he warned of
letting in and then naturalizing too many foreigners, whose inferior breeding
and insufficient commitment to American values might threaten the fragile
republic. “In the infancy of the country, with a boundless waste to people, it
was politic to give a facility to naturalization; but our situation is now changed,”
he wrote in 1802.

In stunning yet disappointing fashion, Rampell
references a musical (which no one has heard of), but refuses to cite statistical
data or researched evidence to support her unserious (and offensive) argument of
widespread and long-standing hatred of immigrants among Americans.

Americans, born and naturalized, are Neither
racist, xenophobic, nor anti-immigrant, but they are angry with rogue leaders
and the lack of enforcement in this country, and they are angry with their
leaders for not taking the necessary steps to respect their rights.

Sunday, August 30, 2015

While mainstream newspapers continue to buoy his character and policies, hoping for another Bush-Clinton mix-up in 2016, the third Bush candidate for President is finding that he is indeed having to fight for the nomination, and despite his plainspoken views and honesty in debates, plus the large campaign cash at his disposal, no one is really interested in Jeb.

Recently, he had to ask for help from not-so blasts from the past to help his campaign.

Former President George W. Bush, who sent out the following eblast on behalf of his younger brother-governor-Presidential candidate:

Dear Arthur -

Thanks for taking the time to read my note. I rarely send emails like this, but I wanted to make sure I asked for your support on behalf of my brother, Jeb. George W. Bush has kept his mind and mouth out of national politics throughout President Obama's term in office. He should be applauded for keeping his opinions to himself.This is a consequential time in our nation's history, and we need a strong leader.

Jeb took on tough challenges as Florida's Governor and delivered results. I know he will do the same as President. Younger brother Jeb Bush had a commendable record as Florida's governor. Unfortunately, his presidential policy views are out of the mainstream for the Republican base and for the county as a whole. If Jeb the Governor had merely offered to expand his conservative leadership from the Sunshine State to the United States, he would have been a much stronger, credible, and viable contender.

My brother will be a tremendous President. He is a proven leader with an optimistic outlook and a clear, conservative agenda for America's future. "Tremendous" president. Hmm. Republican voters held high hopes for George W. Bush, but just like his father HW, W had his head in New England while planting his feet in Texas. Too liberal, too much Big Government, all feel-good compassion without the true-good conservatism.He's got a tough road ahead -- take it from someone who's been there. With his strengths and your support, he will succeed. But he needs you, Arthur:Jeb2016.com/EndorseIndeed, Jeb does have a tough road ahead for the GOP nomination, in greater part because of his Big Government embrace of Common Core and amnesty. One wonders whether Bush would do anything about Obamacare aside from tinkering around the edges.Laura and I appreciate your consideration and send our best wishes.

Sincerely,George W. Bush Sorry, Dubya, but the conservative children are learnin', and one more Bush in the White House would only solidify a family legacy of campaign conservatism which caves to DC Lobbyist priorities.The fact that Jeb! needed to ask for George! to solicit donations should indicate that a third Bush in the White House is looking less likely, and may find that with the bevy of qualified candidates vying for the nomination. the younger Bush has uprooted his chances.

She is not an exciting figure to the Democratic political class, and another candidate, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, is challenging her coronation.

The fight between state and federal interests, between black and brown interest groups, could undermine Democratic chances for holding onto seats in California.

In her latest eblast, she signals the same tired liberal talking points to rake in money, including the false arguments that her presence in the US Senate will prevent government shut-downs and protect women's "rights".

Hey -- does your August To-Do list look anything like this right now?

Go on vacation Buy groceries☐ Support Kamala’s campaign for Senate Bring the family pet to the vet

This list provides a standard set of demands for anyone living their daily chores or looking for a respite from hectic schedules. "Go on vacation" has become an inceasingly expensive luxury which fewer Californians can afford. What about groceries? More California residents have complained that they cost of food and supplies has risen considerably. Auto insurance and rents have also risen, along with the cost of living in the Golden State.

Progressive policies have benefited the rich, cronyist, well-connected at the expense of everyone else. Most Californians can't afford the basic necessities, and now she wants more people to donate to her arrogant campaign for the US Senate.

Korrupt Kammy is struggling to raise money, No kidding. See above.I can tell you a few things that would be at the top of Kamala’s Senate to-do list:

☐ Stop a government shutdown☐ Protect a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body and health☐ Raise the minimum wage☐ Address the problem of income inequality

But Kamala can’t get to work unless we help her get elected first. Reaching this $40,000 goal in the next day is priority one.

It would be nice to shut the government down, since every time the government stays open, a few people get richer and everyone else gets poorer and less safe. Protecting a woman's body is the subtle ruse to expand abortion, but the fact is that a pregnant mother has another life, another body in her body. It is not her body that is under discussion.

Kammy wants to address income inequality. She could start by ending the war on working people in the state of California, many of whom simply cannot make ends meet under the current anti-business, anti-free market economic principles.

Last month, former Congresswoman Jane Harman blasted the United States' fight against the Islamic State, signalling that we are losing the tech war.

The Washington Post listed Harman as "a former Democratic member of the House of Representatives, is president and chief executive of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars."
They neglect to mention that shortly after relection in 2010, her lowest margin against a Republican challenger since her first election, and following a spirited left-wing primary challenge, Moderate Democrats like Jane Harman are a dying breed because extremists not only took over the Democratic Party, following the election of partisan fraud Barack Obama, but the unyielding intolerance of the Left which brooks no disagreement.

Harman talks about foreign intelligence successes in Boston, then segues to the Chattanooga tragedy:

Two weeks ago in Boston, authorities stopped a disturbed young man before he could launch a terror attack; tragically, last week in Chattanooga, the story ended very differently. Law enforcement officials are scrambling to learn whether clues were missed that could have prevented the rampage and led to the alleged shooter, Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez. But in too many cases, the breadcrumb trail starts with suspicious ones and zeros — with digital propaganda that we still struggle to counter.
For a Presidency which boasts a massive outreach through social media, why hasn't Obama mustered long-term strength and capacity against the Islamic State?

In 2007, when Twitter was a year young and WhatsApp was still two years away, I introduced a bill that would have set up a national commission to study the new ways that terror groups were reaching the lost, disaffected and psychopathic. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 404 to 6, before it was misconstrued by outside groups and mothballed by the Senate. Mothballed in the US Senate? A reminder to all readers: The Democrats controlled the US Senate from 2007 to 2015. The Democratic Senate Majority Leader at the time, Harry Reid, was killing good legislation left and right, including from my former Congresswoman.
The unprecedented savvy of the Islamic State — the shocking reach of its “digital caliphate” — makes this work more urgent than ever. Online, we move too slowly and know too little to combat this generation of Web-native jihadists. We’ve failed to mobilize tech and messaging talent to counter the Islamic State on social media. This country built Silicon Valley; we shouldn’t need computer lessons from 7th-century thugs. It’s past time to bring our counternarrative up to date.Kill their websites over there so that they cannot set their sights on native targets here. I like that idea.
In part, this is a capacity problem. Organizations fighting the message battle, such as the State Department’s Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, are dramatically underresourced. The “Think Again Turn Away” campaign, which rebuts jihadist accounts, has fired off almost 6,000 tweets — but Ali Shukri Amin, a 17-year-old Virginian who pleaded guilty last month to spreading Islamic State propaganda, has launched more than 7,000 by himself. A recent study from the Brookings Institution found that tens of thousands of Islamic State boosters such as Amin are active on Twitter, amplified by bots that help get propaganda trending. Before we even ask if we have the message right, it should be obvious those numbers don’t work. We’re trying to do by hand what the Islamic State crowd-sources.Harman has apparently failed to understand that Big Government is cumbersome at best with technology and innovation. Why not empowering individuals to fight against the Islamic Militants by Twitter Feed?

We simply must do better. Political campaigns have been transformed by the power to micro-target voters; that skill set needs to be brought to bear for countermessaging. Such efforts could allow us to reach someone such as “Jihad Jane,” whose MySpace posts included statements such as “I support all the Mujahideen.” She didn’t fit the typical terror profile, and the good news is we found her before she could act. Imagine if searching for beheading videos brought up ads for mainstream spiritual resources in the searcher’s community; imagine if jihadist Twitter bubbles were punctured by targeted messages from responsible religious authorities. The same approach drives a multibillion-dollar digital ad economy, dominated by firms that know you — statistically — better than your mother does. Google, Facebook and Twitter work with clients in every space, including both political parties, to shape maximally persuasive campaigns that reach people where they are. By partnering with tech firms, there’s no reason we can’t narrowcast more effectively than our enemies.
We can do it without compromising privacy or civil liberties more than a pop-up ad does. And we can do it for far less than it costs to hire federal workers to tweet all day.Counterterrorism with micro-targeting. I like the sound of that. Too bad Barack Obama was interested in microtargeting to get reelected, in spite of his frequent spate of lies and deceit about the stimulus. Obamacare, national security, the IRS abuses against conservative groups, or the rampant corruption and failure which defines the Veterans Administration.Organizing for Action has focused on controlling Americans and making them vote for more of the Obama-Pelosi-Clinton failed agenda, none of which is doing any good for anyone, especially a Democratic Party which has fallen so out of step with the rest of the coutnry and the world.In fact, we have witnessed a political party interested in depressing and diminishing American influence around the world. From apology tours in the Middle East to social media dedicated to social liberalism

So far, the failure to leverage Big Data for countermessaging has been a strategic failure of the anti-Islamic State campaign. But who should do the leveraging? We need to be very aware that our soft power is limited in these spaces. @ThinkAgain_DOS does too much of what younger Internet users would call “sea-lioning”: jumping with a splash into conversations where it doesn’t belong. The kind of kids swayed by Dabiq, the Islamic State’s glossy magazine, are not the kind of kids open to the input of the State Department. Recruitment is happening on platforms where the U.S. government has less than zero cultural capital.
Big Data? Another special interest not working in the public interest: is this what Americans can look forward to?

Smart, subtle partnership will be the key. Already, efforts such as the Network Against Violent Extremism, a Google Ideas effort, are connecting the voices that can speak credibly on these issues: ex-jihadists, former radicals, survivors of extremist violence. When top-down government approaches are flawed, then bottom-up, grassroots organizing is an obvious next try. The government still has skin in the game — dollars and cents, and, more important, convening power and information-sharing — that can make these public-private partnerships work. But it needs to lead from behind. Get religious leaders, political consultants and tech firms in the same room, then step back. This is a community effort and an American effort — the feds aren’t the right face for it.Harman gets it right in this passage. The War on Digital Terror should be a grassroots effort, Big Government getting bigger has not made us safer. "The government still has skin in the game". Not really, with the massive debt and deficit spending bankrupting this country. Harman's vote for illiberal frauds like Cap and Tax and Obamacare only bankrupted this country more. She signed off on the Big Bank bailouts, too. Lo and behold, the moral hazard only worsened, the big banks got bigger and the stock markets are as volatile as ever. If Harman was serious about fighting Islamic terrorism, why did she support progressive legislative agendas which have crippled this country's fundraising and resources to fight the war on terror?
We used to be good at this kind of partnership, offering the better messengers a helping hand. During the Cold War, the United States quietly supported important cultural institutions, literary journals — even the Russian-language publication of “Dr. Zhivago.”

Today our war for hearts and minds is fought online, not in print; the key expertise isn’t centered in Washington. As the techies say, there has to be an app for that. The ISIS fight is a cultural fight, an eternal conflict between good and evil, liberty and tyranny. Now more than ever the West, the Free World must wage a world-wide Crusade against Islam and Islamic jihad. Former Congresswoman Jane Harman deserves some credit for recognizing the evil in the world, and the need to fight Islamic terrorism at every cost. Her support for Israel deserves praise and recognition, too.However, her domestic agenda, in lock-step with Barack Obama, has only made it more difficult to protect and defend this country and fight global terrorism. National security and fiscal prudence can work hand in hand if done properly. And yes indeed, the fight against global terrorism must include a digital component writ large.

He will disagree with their policy views, and has shown no reserve to criticize bad ideas.

He called the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare a "fool's bet."

Yet it was. Ohio Governor John Kasich wants to crow about the successes of the Medicaid expansion, and yet already the program is $2 billion over budget.

"Reagan expanded Medicaid three times,"

Reagan was wrong to do that. Reagan also supported an assault weapons ban, which would have done nothing to stop violent gun crimes. He also wanted to called the terrorists directly in one hostage situation, and his advisers had to prevent the lapse in judgment.

Walker never attacked his colleagues directly, and has even praised his Presidential contenders, even when they have attacked him unfairly or falsey.

One key example of this tussle occurred when US Senator Ted Cruz claimed the following on the Iowa conservative Steve Deace's radio show:

“If we’re going to have an election that turns on amnesty
and the rule of law, we can’t be nominating candidates like Jeb Bush and Scott
Walker and Marco Rubio, who have been vocal, aggressive, repeated proponents of
amnesty for many, many years.”

Ted Cruz named names on Friday. He attacked Jeb Bush, Scott
Walker, and Marco Rubio as “vocal, aggressive, repeated proponents of amnesty,”
who, if they receive the GOP presidential nomination, won’t be able to stop
Hillary Clinton from pursuing President Obama’s “objective” of fundamentally
transforming America.

Aside from Jeb Bush and even Marco Rubio (who joined with the Gang of Eight bill then repudiated it, then waffled again), the argument that Scott Walker has been a "vocal aggressive, repeated" proponent of amnesty is simply not true.

The timeline on Walker's views have been limited if anything.

Granted, as the Chief Executive Officer of Milwaukee County in the mid Naughts (2000s), he signed on with the rest of the board supporting pathway to citizenship and other immigration reforms. Those statements were pro-forma and non-essential.

Then, in 2011, Walker repealed in-state tuition for illegal aliens as part of unprecedennted budget cuts to stave off insolvency in his state. He also joined with Texas Governor Greg Abbott to sue President Obama for his unlawful and unconstitutional executive amnesty.

Most Walker critics, looking for any reason or excuse to discredit Scott Walker. will reference his interview with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, in which Walker expounded on his support for legal immigration from all over the country. There is nothing wrong with immigration, as long as the migrants follow the legal process. In an off-hand question, one of the interviews asked if he would support a pathway to citizenship. The governor responses casually: "That sounds reasonable."

For many conservatives, including this writer, some form of pathway seemed reasonable. With the rogue executive in the White House refusing to uphold the rule of law and counter effective efforts to control the border and stop illegal immigration, and immigration proposals which enable or indemnify illegal immigration are now off the table.

Furthermore, Walker is the only candidate on record during the campaign season who has stood his ground against illegal aliens and refused to bow or be bullied. Where is Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, or Rand Paul to declare "We are a nation of laws"?

On June 19, 2013 Sen. Cruz issued a press release describing his proposed amendments to the so-called “Gang of Eight” Senate immigration bill. The bill would have provided a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, among other things. Sen. Cruz’s proposed amendments would have done several things, including creating a prohibition on federal, state, or local means-tested entitlement benefits for those here illegally. His proposed amendments also would have prevented those currently here illegally who are offered legal status under the bill from obtaining citizenship.

To his credit, Cruz voted against the 2013 bill, but would he have voted for it if his amendments had been added?

Favish then reasons:

Sen. Cruz’s position is contradictory. In his speech announcing his candidacy, he stated: “Instead of the lawlessness . . . .” In his June 2013 press release he stated that “[w]e must . . . fix this problem in a way that . . . respects rule of law . . . .” He further stated: “Providing a path to citizenship undermines the rule of law and is an insult to the millions who have immigrated to the U.S. legally.” But he was willing to provide legal status to illegal immigrants, short of citizenship. For the record, Walker has a pro-enforcement, anti-amnesty record, even if he had to change his mind on other issues. But he changed his mind. Cruz is arguing that he never once offered a pathway to citizenship or legal status short of citizenship. Nope. That is just not the case.

Other conservative, anti-illegal immigration activists have also questioned concerns status on amnesty:

But what has many of our activists concerned about Cruz is an amendment that he offered to the Gang of Eight's amnesty bill in 2013. The amendment would have granted work permits to most of the 11 million illegal aliens once the feds had successfully completed the biometric exit-entry system, built 700 miles of fencing consistent with the Secure Fence Act of 2006, doubled the number of Border Patrol agents, and quadrupled the number of technology resources along the Southwest border, including cameras and motion sensors.

The border security requirements were so lofty that many in the media characterized the amendment as a poison pill since it contained much more border security than most Congressional Democrats could stomach. He also offered another amendment that would have kept the work permits in place, but would have removed the "path to citizenship" for most of the 11 million.

"The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight," Sen. Cruz said.

Cruz has said on dozens of other occasions that he supports work permits for illegal aliens. So why the generous rating on our Presidential grade cards?

Well. Well. Well. Cruz is not the anti-amnesty hawk he claims to be, despite his best rhetoric.

Now, in spite of Cruz' attacks, Walker did not hit back, but kept running his race, focusing on Hillary Clinton's poor record on just about everything. Add to this his refusal to attack his fellow Republican contenders, Walker defended Cruz against an attack from House Speaker John Boehner.

Walker
was asked about the reports Friday on "The Hugh Hewitt Show" and
called the reported comments off base.

"I think it's just
wrong," Walker said, according to theWashington
Examiner. "Even though I don't know Sen. Cruz as well as I know
some of the governors, I've grown to know him and like him and admire him quite
a bit out on the campaign trail."

Walker shows respect for policy views and political stances, even if other candidates slight him unfairly:

They
may be running against each other in the Republican presidential primary, but
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker does not think Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is a
"jackass."

And for that, Cruz is grateful.

Cruztweetedhis appreciation for Walker on Friday,
linking to an article about Walker defending Cruz against reports that House
Speaker John Boehner called Cruz a "jackass" at a fundraiser on
Wednesday.

At least Cruz is starting to show some respect once again, and he should, since the Wisconsin Governor has a better record as well as rhetoric, and has remained stronger in the polls and the media wars than Cruz.

Ohio Governor John Kasich achieved some remarkable
accomplishments as a Republican in a swing state. Unfortunately, much of what
he is running on today undermines any good he did. A Republican’s Republican
two decades ago, Kasich the Congressman and Presidential candidate was the
fiscal watchdog outsider that never caught the national spirit in 2000. John
McCain would soar on his real maverick roots, squeaking past George W. Bush, but
felt the Rove crush in South Carolina. Like McCain, Kasich would have
maintained a better following – and been a better President – if elected in
2000. That was not to be, and he is not to be this time around, either.

His second shot at the national limelight began in 2010,
elected Ohio’s Governor during the Tea Party Great Awakening. He set to work
balancing the state’s budget, cutting the spending and trimming the uwelcome
leaven. He tried to out-Walker Scott Walker, and pushed for collective bargaining
reforms including police officers and fire-fighters.

Sadly, he lost that fight. Timing is everything in politics,
including necessary political reforms. Kasich’s decision to follow Walker’s Act
10 with his heavier spin ended a major effort which could have succeeded with
better coordination, much like his first Presidential run in 1999. What would
anyone expect trying to pick the same fight, with the international union
hordes just a few states away? Walker caught the unions off guard, but they geared
up quickly to squelch Kasich’s agenda.

Despite Kasich’s reelection by massive double-digits in 2014,
conservatives confront Kasich on his heretical, illiberal policy decisions,
specifically his Obamacare embrace, and take the “fool’s bet” Medicaid
expansion. For the Ohio Governor, who has played the moderate card all too
often, he still preaches the need for fiscal discipline, but his lumpy
liberalism is showing forth, and should have knocked him out of consideration for
the Election 2016 GOP nomination from the outset.

Taking on the Affordable Care Act, Kasich contends that the
loaves and the fishes for a good life can come from the government. The he argues
that Common Core will improve education. Earlier this year, Texas
Governor Greg Abbot excoriated Common Core, and proved that he was more
educated about the topic, and would have schooled Kasich in the process.

Beyond that, Kasich celebrates amnesty and celebrates a
guest worker program, citing the argument that “we” should do the most for the
least among us. Did Kasich not get that joke from the Gipper? “The nine most
dangerous words in the English language: ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here
to help.” Help and charity are all well and good, but the Lord loves a cheerful
(not a tearful) giver. The government has nothing to give, but merely takes
from one and gives to another.

Nevertheless, the Buckeye Governor bucks conservative
trends, and justifies his wholesale sellout to the Deity of Big Government with
frequent references to God. “God has a plan for you! God bless you!” Kasich
frequently intones during TV interviews. Right, a lot like “If you like your
plan, you can keep it.” Tell that to the millions who have lost their insurance
plans in this country. Kasich’s idolatry will lead to “If you like your liberty
and security, you can keep them, too!” Ask the tens of millions who have been
slaughtered by totalitarian governments throughout the world. The state with a
sprinkled veneer of “Holy this and that” does not make it holy, no more than
sitting in the White House makes one President (consider Barack Obama).

"Now, when you
die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you
much about what you did about keeping government small," Kasich said.
"But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a
good answer.’

John Kasich (Truth Revolt)

Never mind the theological fraud of this argument. Jesus
provided a better answer during His earthly ministry:

“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. And Render unto God
what is God’s.”

In case you missed the subtext, it all belongs to Him, so
stop trying to take it from others!

In the meantime, wouldn’t it be nice for politicians to stop
robbing Peter to pay Paul? Government justifies taking from makers and making
more takers. Would Kasich like to say “Thank you” to all the federal taxpayers
who are subsidizing his now over-budget Medicaid expansion?

The fact that Kasich misuses the Bible to sanctify more
government in our lives is particularly reprehensible. I don’t fear the devil
whose horns I see, but the devil wearing Prada preaching Pravda, and Kasich
fits that description all too well. Like a third-tier cable televangelist, a
false prophet looking for easy profits with “Just send me $10, and we will pray
your way to prosperity, Kasich wants to sell “compassionate conservatism”
without the conservatism. The Bible does teach that God’s heartbeat is for us
to “proper and be in health, even as your soul prospers” (3 John 2). Soul prosperity
matters more, and depends on walking in truth. Kasich’ Big Government social
gospel has no truth.

To add insult to un-Biblical misery, Kasich even defended
attending a “gay wedding”:

I’m an old-fashioned
person here and I happen to believe in traditional marriage. But I’ve also said
the court has ruled. … and I said we will accept it. And guess what, I just
went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay.

Kasich neglected another part of the Gospels: Male and
female he created them.

Ordained minister Mike Huckabee gave the godly answer to
this issue: “The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being”. Neither is the government, whether pretending
to provide healthcare, legal status, or education contrary to truth. Only a
religious con would suggest otherwise, and John Kasich, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing,
fits that unholy bill to a T.

Democratic Congresswoman Gwen Moore of Milwaukee, Wisconsin blasted
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s support for Voter ID, drug testing for
welfare recipients, as well as his opposition to minimum wage hikes as proof
that Walker is hurting black people.

Rep. Moore then played
the race card, claiming that Walker’s polices are “tightening the noose,
literally, around African-Americans.” Just Vice President Joe Biden told
African-Americans that Mitt Romney was “going to put y’all back in chains”,
Moore’s race-baiting rhetoric was a desperate smear against an egalitarian and respectable
Republican governor.

Congresswoman Gwen Moore

The truth is that Moore’s liberal adherence to those failed
Democratic points, and even the advance of those failed policies, hurt all
Americans, particularly minorities. Minimum
wage hikes have forced out entry level workers while closing down
businesses and forcing up prices. Voter ID laws do not discriminate against
African-Americans, but ensure the integrity of every man’s vote. An
African-American lawmaker in Rhode Island, Raymond Hall, advanced Voter ID in
that most Democratic state in the union, and black religious leaders in
Southern California as well as throughout the country support Voter ID. As for
drug testing for welfare recipients, Moore should consider that mostly white
people are on welfare. For her to assume that African-Americans are
disproportionately affected in itself exposes how much of a “stereotypical politician”
(and racist?) she is.

Moore has battled Walker on many fronts, including her
opposition to his Act 10 reforms, and lost. She lost this fight too, and should
apologize for her abusive, offensive comments.

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Like more savvy politicos, he has understood the undercurrent of anger which Trump has manipulated to his advantage.

The Washington Cartel has not does its job, serving the public and upholding the Constitution. This problem has gone from bad to worse under Republicans as well as Democrats. Special interests, Big Business and Big Labor lobbyists push to make Big Government even bigger.

When will we find leadership in the White House that will do what is best for every house in the country.

Walker's latest eblast suggests that is a message he wants to tap into.

Arthur, are you tired of politicians who promise you one thing while running for office only to break that promise once elected?

It seems that’s all the Washington establishment is capable of these days.

It is important that we recognize that there is no distinction between establishment interests in both parties. Another reason why voters should embrace elected officials with a record of results in the states, like Governors.

Last year we were promised if we gave control of the United States Senate to Republicans they would pass a bill to repeal ObamaCare, nearly ten months later, we’re still waiting.

We are still waiting. Some Washington leaders argue that to put forward any such bill would lead to automatic vetoes. So what? At least they should make the effort to push back and require real governance from elected leaders

I ran for Governor of Wisconsin because I knew our state was in trouble. We had a $3.6 billion deficit, the unemployment rate was 8.1%, and the big government labor bosses had a strangle hold on our education system.

It was put up or shut up time in Wisconsin, and the Republicans, with Walker leading, decided to put up and make the Democrats shut up. Even after the failed recall in June 2012, Republicans would hold onto the state legislature and advance their policy goals. Their long-term wins continued into 2014, too.

Voters are looking for winning leadership. Donald Trump has talked up standing up to entrenched interests and selfish causes. Walker actually walked the walk.

Once elected we took big, bold actions and balanced the budget, cut the unemployment rate to 4.6%, and beat the public sector union bosses. Taking on the status quo was not easy, we faced death threats, nearly 100,000 protestors, and ultimately a recall election.

How quickly many conservatives forget the fights which Walker and his conservative peers faced in the Dairy State. Let us never forget that the union thugs stopped at nothing, including faked called from the Koch Brothers, and most odious of all -- attacks and protests against Walker's own parents.

We took all those fights head-on and won because we stood true to our conservative principles.

If we can do all this in a blue state like Wisconsin, you can be sure we can accomplish the same successes in Washington.

Our next president must be a leader unafraid to take on the liberal special interests or anyone else who would stand in the way of conservative change.

While many politicians, left and right, argue that Washington is the source of all the problems, and that politicians never keep their promises, Walker adds that he has kept his promises and tamed unruly unions and their greedy bosses.

It takes a character of resolve to stand one's ground. I look forward to seeing Walker in the White House saying No! to big spending and outrageous government expansion into our lives.

Thank you, Governor Walker. We know that you are not afraid, and we look forward you to taking on every special interest fraud.